Censorship was either restrictive or corrective, t.e., it interfered to restrict or prevent publication, or it enforced penalties after publication. Repression of free discussion was regarded as so necessary a part of government that Sir Thomas More in his Utopia makes it punishable with death for a private individual to criticize the conduct of the ruling power. Under Mary printing was confined to members of the Stationers’ Company, founded by royal charter in 1556. Under Elizabeth the Star Chamber, the great censorial authority of the Tudor period, assumed the right to confine printing to London, Oxford, and Cambridge, to limit the number of printers and presses, to prohibit all publications issued without proper licence, and to enter houses to search for unlicensed presses and publications (Order of 1585, Strype’s Whitgift, App. 94). The search for unlicensed presses or publications was entrusted to an officer called the “messenger of the press.” The Stuart kings followed the example of their predecessors. Thus in 1637 was issued a stringent order of the Star Chamber forbidding the importation of books printed abroad to the scandal of religion or the church or the Government, and the printing of any book not first lawfully licensed. Law books were to be licensed by one of the chief justices or the chief baron, books of history and state affairs by one of the secretaries of state, of heraldry by the earl marshal, of divinity, philosophy, poetry, and other subjects by the archbishop of Canterbury or the bishop of London, or the chancellors or vice-chancellors of the universities. There were to be only twenty master printers and four letter-founders. The punishment was at the discretion of the court (Rushworth, Historical Collections, vol. iii., App. 306). The same principle of press restriction was carried out by the Long Parliament after the abolition of the Star Chamber, and it was an ordinance of that body issued in 1643 that called forth Milton’s Areopagitica, a Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing, itself an unlicensed book. The parliament appointed committees for printing, who appointed licensers, but the licensing was really left in a great measure to the wardens of the Stationers’ Company. At the Restoration Sir John Birkenhead acted as licenser, appointed apparently under the general prerogative. It was, no doubt, too, under the general prerogative that Charles II., by a proclamation in 1660, called in and suppressed Milton’s Defensio pro Populo Anglicano. Then followed the Licensing Act of 1662 (13 and 14 Car. II. c. 33), limited to two years. The provisions as to importation of books, the appointment of licensers, and the number of printers and founders were practically re-enactments of the similar provisions in the Star Chamber order of 1637. Printing presses were not to be set up without notice to the Stationers’ Company. A king’s messenger had power by warrant of the king or a secretary of state to enter and search for unlicensed presses and printing. Severe penalties by fine and imprisonment were denounced against offenders. The Act was successively renewed up to 1679. Under the powers of the Act Sir Roger L’Estrange was appointed licenser, and the effect of the supervision was that practically the newspaper press was reduced to the London Gazette. (See Newspapers, vol. xvii. pp. 414, 415.) The objections made to lines 594- 599 of the first book of Paradise Lost by the archbishop of Canterbury’s chaplain, acting as licenser, are well known. The Act expired in 1679, and for the remainder of the reign of Charles II., as in the reign of George III., the restrictions on the press took the form of prosecutions for libel. The twelve judges resolved in 1680 “that all persons that do write or print or sell any pamphlet that is either scandalous to public or private persons, such books may be seized and the person punished by law; that all books which are scandalous to the Government may be seized, and all persons so exposing them may be punished. And further, that all writers of news, though not scandalous, seditious, nor reflective upon the Government or the state, yet, if they are writers (as there are few else) of false news, they are indictable and punishable upon that account” (Harris’s case, State Trials, vii. 929). In 1685 the Licensing Act was renewed for seven years (1 Jac. II. c. 8, § 15). No mention of the liberty of the press was made in the Bill of Rights. On the expiration of the Licensing Act in 1692 it was continued till the end of the existing session of parliament (4 and 5 Will, and Mary, c. 24, § 14). In 1695 the Commons refused to renew it. The immediate effect of this was to lay authors open to the attacks of literary piracy, and in 1709 the first Copyright Act (8 Anne, c. 19) was enacted for their protection. The power of a secretary of state to issue a warrant, whether general or special, for the purpose of searching for and seizing the author of a libel or the libellous papers themselves—a power exercised by the Star Chamber and confirmed by the Licensing Act—was still asserted, and was not finally declared illegal until the case of Entick v. Carrington in 1765 (State Trials, xix. 1030). In 1776 the House of Commons came to a resolution in accordance with this decision. The compulsory stamp duty on newspapers was abandoned in 1855 (18 Vict. c. 27), the duty on paper in 1861 (24 Vict. c. 20), the optional duty on newspapers in 1870 (33 and 34 Vict. c. 38). From that time the English press may be said to date its complete freedom, which rests rather upon a constitutional than a legal foundation. It is not confirmed by any provision of the supreme legislative authority, as is the case in many countries. A declaration in favour of the liberty of the press is usually a prominent feature in the written

constitutions of foreign states. Its legal aspect in England cannot be better expressed than in the words of Lord Wynford :—

“My opinion of the liberty of the press is that every man ought to be permitted to instruct his fellow - subjects; that every man may fearlessly advance any new doctrines, provided he does so with proper respect to the religion and government of the country; that he may point out errors in the measures of public men, but he must not impute criminal conduct to them. The liberty of the press cannot be carried to this extent without violating another equally sacred right, the right of character. This right can only be attacked in a court of justice, where the party attacked has a fair opportunity of defending himself. Where vituperation begins, the liberty of the press ends” (Rex v. Burdett, Barnewall and Alderson’s Reports, iv. 132).

The few existing restrictions on the liberty of the press are presumed to be imposed for the public benefit. They are in some cases of great historical interest. The rights of private persons are in general sufficiently protected in one direction by the law of Libel (g , .v.), in another by the law of Copyright (q.v.), while the criminal law provides for the cases of press offences against morality, public justice, &c. Thus the courts have power to punish summarily as a contempt the publication of comments upon proceedings sub judice or reflexions upon the conduct of judicial officers. (See Contempt of Court.) The last relic of the censorship before publication is to be found in the licensing of stage plays. By 6 and 7 Vict. c. 68 no new plays or additions to old plays can be acted for hire at any theatre in Great Britain until they have been submitted to the lord chamberlain, who may forbid any play or any part of a play. The penalty for acting a play before it has been allowed or after it has been disallowed is a sum not exceeding <£50 for every offence and the forfeiture of the licence of the theatre in which the offence occurred. This jurisdiction is exercised by an official of the lord chamberlain’s department called the “examiner of stage plays.” The last relic of the monopoly of printing formerly granted to licensees of the crown is found in the exclusive right of the queen’s printer and the universities of Oxford and Cambridge to print the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer, and of the queen’s printer to print Acts of parliament and other state documents. The privileges of the universities are confirmed by 13 Eliz. c. 29. The rights of the queen’s printer are protected by severe penalties. A maximum term of seven years’ penal servitude is incurred by any person who prints any Act of parliament or other Government document, falsely purporting to be printed by the queen’s printer or under the authority of Her Majesty’s stationery office (8 and 9 Viet, c. 113; 45 Vict. c. 9). The rights of the printers of the journals of either House of parliament are protected by 8 and 9 Vict. c. 113. The publication of parliamentary debates in any form by any other persons than the printers of the journals of the two Houses is still in theory a breach of privilege, but in practice they have been fully reported since 1771. The other restrictions upon the press are to a great extent those imposed for police purposes. By 32 and 33 Vict. c. 24 (confirming in part previous enactments applying to Great Britain) the printer of any paper or book for profit is required under penalties to print thereon his name and address or the name of a university press, and is to keep a copy of everything printed, with a few exceptions. Penalties must be sued for within three months, and no proceeding for penalties can be commenced unless in the name of the attorney-general or solicitorgeneral of England or the lord advocate of Scotland. By the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act, 1881 (44 and 45 Vict. c. 60, which applies to England and Ireland, but not to Scotland), newspaper proprietors are, except in the case of joint-stock companies, to be registered and to make annual returns of the title of the newspaper and the names of all the proprietors, with their occupations, places of business, and places of residence. By the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts, 1883 and 1884 (46 and 47 Vict. c. 51, s. 18, and 47 and 48 Vict. c. 70, s. 14), the name and address of the printer must be printed on all bills, placards, &c., referring to a parliamentary or municipal election. By 6 and 7 Vict. c. 68, s. 7, the name and place of abode of a manager of a theatre are to be printed on every play-bill announcing a representation at such theatre. Offences against decency by the press are provided for by 20 and 21 Vict. c. 83, 25 and 26 Viet, c. 101, s. 251 (for Scotland), and 2 and 3 Vict. c. 47, s. 54 (for the metropolis). The importation of obscene literature into the United Kingdom is forbidden by 39 and 40 Vict. c. 36, s. 42. By the Larceny Act, 1861, any person who prints or publishes an advertisement offering a reward for the return of stolen goods without questions asked is subject to a penalty (24 and 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 102). This penalty cannot, however, be sued for without the sanction of the attorney-general or solicitor-general of England or Ireland (33 and 34 Viet, c. 65). The advertisement in the United Kingdom of foreign or illegal lotteries is prohibited by 6 and 7 Will. IV. c. 66, betting advertisements by 16 and 17 Viet, c. 119, s. 7, and 37 Vict. c. 15.

The right of an author or publisher to the full profits of his undertaking was at one time restricted by the Copyright Act of Anne (8 Anne, c. 19, s. 4), by which the archbishop of Canterbury and other authorities were empowered to lower the price of a book upon complaint that the price was unreasonable. The only restriction of the kind now existing is the obligation of delivering (without request) to the British Museum a copy of any work published within the L⅛ited Kingdom, and of delivering (on request) copies for the use of the university libraries at Oxford and Cambridge, the library of the faculty of advocates at Edinburgh, and the library of Trinity College, Dublin (5 and 6 Vict. c. 45, ss. 6-10).

Scotland.— Printing became, as in England, a royal monopoly. The exclusive right of printing was granted by James IV. to Walter Chepman, who printed the first book in Scotland. The monopoly of printing Acts of the Scottish parliament was granted by James V. to the printer chosen by the clerk register and specially licensed by the king (1540, c. 127). Printers are forbidden by 1551, c. 27, to print, whether in Latin or English, without licence from ordinaries deputed in that behalf by the crown. No book treating of religion or of the kirk was to be printed without a licence from the general assembly (1646, c. 164), or of the kingdom without a licence from one of the judges or the secretary (c. 165). The council were empowered to prohibit presses at their discretion by the order of 30th March 1655. The importation of “famous” books and libels in defence of the pope was prohibited by 1581, c. 106. Press offences were treated with the utmost severity. By 1585, c. 1, the author of a libellous writing against the king was punishable with death. It is scarcely necessary to say that since the Union the press of Scotland has enjoyed no less liberty than that of England.

In the case of Bibles, Old and New Testaments, Psalm Books, the Book of Common Prayer, the Confession of Faith, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms a licence for printing is still required. The licensing authority is the lord advocate, but all proposed publications are submitted for approval to the body officially known as “Her Majesty’s sole and only Master Printers in Scotland,” consisting of the lord advocate, the solicitor-general, the moderator of the general assembly, and four other members. A licence is also required for printing Acts of parliament; but a general licence granted in 1848 to a firm of printers in Edinburgh is still operative, and their publications are not submitted for approval. As its work is practically confined to Bibles and the other religious publications enumerated, the above-mentioned body commonly receives the name of the Bible Board.

Ireland.— This is the only part of the United Kingdom in which the press cannot be said to be free. The policy of successive Governments has generally been in favour of restrictions. By the Prevention of Crime Act, 1882 (45 and 46 Vict. c. 25), the lord-lieutenant was empowered to order the seizure of any newspaper appearing to contain matter inciting to the commission of treason or of any act of violence or intimidation (§ 13). He may also by warrant direct the search for and seizure of any papers or documents suspected to be used or to be intended to be used for the purpose of or in connexion with any secret society existing for criminal purposes (§ 14).

United States.

The constitutions of Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina, all enacted in 1776, are interesting as containing the earliest declarations of any legislative authority in favour of the liberty of the press. The same principle was afterwards adopted in the constitution of the United States. By art. i. of the amended constitution, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.” Art. iv. secures against warrants for the seizure of papers, except on probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the thing to be seized. The constitution of Louisiana is that in which the right of liberty of the press is declared with the greatest minuteness. By art. vi. s. 21 of the constitution of that State, “Printing presses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the legislature or any branch of the government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.” The Acts of Congress dealing with the press are not numerous, as each State has for the most part its own legislation on the subject, dealing generally with, among other matters, the registration of newspapers, the monopoly of the State printer, and the right of giving the truth in evidence in defence to proceedings for libel. The Act of 18th August 1856 forbids diplomatic or consular officers of the United States to correspond with any foreign newspaper in regard to the affairs of a foreign state. The Act of 3d March 1873 prohibits the printing and circulation of obscene literature. By the Act of 23d June 1860 the congressional printer has, except where otherwise provided by law, the monopoly of printing for the Senate or House of Representatives and the executive and judicial departments. State prosecutions for seditious libel were not infrequent in the early years of the republic; examples will be found in Wharton’s State Trials. Press Laws in the British Colonies and India. Colonies.—In the British colonies the press is as free as it is in England. Each colony has its special legislation on the subject for police and revenue purposes. Where there is a Government printer, his monopoly is protected by the Documentary Evidence Act, 1868 (31 and 32 Viet c. 37), which imposes a maximum penalty of five years penal servitude upon any person printing a copy of any proclamation, order, or regulation which falsely purports to have been printed by the Government printer, or to be printed under the authority of the legislature of any British colony or possession. The Act is, however, subject to any law made by the colonial legislature.

India.— During the governor-generalship of Lord Lytton was passed the “Act for the better control of publications in Oriental languages,” Act ix. of 1878. (1) By this Act copies of newspapers published out of British India are liable to forfeiture and seizure by warrant throughout the whole of British India if the papers “contain any words, signs, or visible representations likely to excite disaffection to the Government established by law in British India, or antipathy between any persons of different races, castes, religions, or sects in British India.” The governor-general may, by notification in the Gazette of India, exclude newspapers, books, Ac., from British India. (2) In places to which the Act is extended by order of the governor-general in council, a magistrate may require the printer and publisher of a newspaper to enter into a bond, with a deposit, not to publish a newspaper containing “any words, signs,” &c. (as in 1 ), or to use or attempt to use it for the purpose of extortion or threat. The consequences of offending are forfeiture of the deposit, papers, press, &c. Books used for the illegal purposes above-mentioned are subject to forfeiture, but no bond or deposit is required previous to publication of books,...

Little is known of the early history of Pressburg. The name does not occur before the 9th century. In 1042 it was destroyed by the Germans, but was soon afterwards rebuilt and so strongly fortified that it sustained two other attacks and was not taken again until 1271. From its strategic situation it has always been an important place. When in 1541 Buda was taken by the Turks, Pressburg became the Hungarian capital, place of coronation, and seat of all the Government offices, and it remained so a good while after the Turks were driven from the country. It was here that the Austrian and Hungarian malcontents concluded the treaty with Archduke Matthias against Rudolf II. In 1619 Pressburg was taken by the Protestant leader Bethlen Gabor; but it was recovered by the imperialists in 1621. It was also the scene of that memorable session of parliament, 1687, at which the Hungarians renounced their right of choosing their king and accepted the hereditary succession. In 1784 the capital was removed to Buda. Peace was made here between Napoleon and Francis I. after the battle of Austerlitz, 26th December 1805, and in 1809 Davoust bombarded the place for a whole month. It continued to be the seat of parliament until 1848, and it was the scene of the great reform debates during the session of 1847-48.